/v 


SPECIAL  MESSAGE 


PRESIDENT  PIEECE 


TO   THE 


HOUSE  OF  KEPKESENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


TRANSMITTING 


HIS  OBJECTIONS 


TO 


THE  BILL  TO  PROVIDE  FOR  THE  ASCERTAINMENT  AND  SATISFACTION  OF  CLAIMS 

OF  AMERICAN  CITIZENS  FOR  SPOLIATIONS  COMMITTED  BY  THE  FRENCH 

PRIOR  TO  THE  THIRTY-FIRST  DAY  OF  JULY,  ONE  THOUSAND 

EIGHT  HUNDRED  AND  ONE. 


FEBRUARY   17,  1855. 


WASHINGTON : 

A.  0.  P.  NICHOLSON,  PRINTER. 

1855. 


SPECIAL  MESSAGE 

S,       "l^jaa 

or 


PRESIDENT  PIERCE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES; 


TRANSMITTING 


HIS    OBJECTIONS 


TO 


THE  BILL  TO  PROVIDE  FOR  THE  "ASCERTAINMENT  AND  SATISFACTION  OF  CLAIMS 

OF  AMERICAN  CITIZENS  FOR  SPOLIATIONS  COMMITTED  BY  THE  FRENCH 

PRIOR  TO  THE  THIRTY-FIRST  DAY  OF  JULY,  ONE  THOUSAND 

EIGHT  HUNDRED  AND  ONE. 


FEBRUARY    175    1855. 


WASHINGTON: 

A.  O.  P.   NICHOLSON,   PRINTER 

1855. 


MESSAGE 


TO  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES: 

I  have  received  and  carefully  considered  the  hill  entitled  "An  act 
to  provide  for  the  ascertainment  of  claims  of  American  citizens  for 
spoliations  committed  hy  the  French  prior  to  the  thirty-first  of  July, 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  one/'  and,  in  the  discharge  of  a  duty 
imperatively  enjoined  on  me  hy  the  constitution,  I  return  the  same, 
•with  my  objections,  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  which  it 
originated. 

In  the  organization  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  the 
legislative  and  executive  functions  were  separated,  and  placed  in  dis- 
tinct hands.  Although  the  President  is  required,  from  time  to  time, 
to  recommend  to  the  consideration  of  Congress  such  measures  as  he 
shall  judge  necessary  and  expedient,  his  participation  in  the  formal 
business  of  legislation  is  limited  to  the  single  duty,  in  a  certain  contin- 
gency, of  demanding  for  a  hill  a  particular  form  of  vote,  prescribed  by 
the  constitution,  before  it  can  become  a  law.  He  is  not  invested  with 
power  to  defeat  legislation  by  an  absolute  veto,  but  only  to  restrain  it, 
and  is  charged  with  the  duty,  in  case  he  disapproves  a  measure,  of 
invoking  a  second,  and  a  more  deliberate  and  solemn  consideration  of 
it  on  the  part  of  Congress.  It  is  not  incumbent  on  the  President  to 
sign  a  bill  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  thus  merely  to  authenticate  the 
action  of  Congress,  for  he  must  exercise  intelligent  judgment,  or  be 
faithless  to  the  trust  reposed  in  him.  If  he  approve  a  bill  he  shall 
sign  it;  but  if  not,  he  shall  return  it,  with  his  objections,  to  that  house 
in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  for  such  further  action  as  the  con- 
stitution demands,  which  is  its  enactment,  if  at  all,  not  by  a  bare 
numerical  majority  as  in  the  first  instance,  but  by  a  constitutional 
majority  of  two-thirds  of  both  houses. 

While  the  constitution  thus  confers  on  the  legislative  bodies  the 
complete  power  of  legislation  in  all  cases,  it  proceeds,  in  the  spirit  of 
justice,  to  provide  for  the  protection  of  the  responsibility  of  the  Presi- 
dent. It  does  not  compel  him  to  affix  the  signature  of  approval  to  any 
bill  unless  it  actually  have  his  approbation;  for,  while  it  requires  him 
to  sign  if  he  approve,  it,  in  my  judgment,  imposes  upon  him  the  duty 
of  withholding  his  signature  if  he  do  not  approve.  In  the  execution 


4  VETO    MESSAGE. 

of  his  official  duty  in  this  respect,  lie  is  not  to  perform  a  mere  mecha- 
nical part,  hut  is  to  decide  and  act  according  to  conscientious  convic- 
tions of  the  rightfulness  or  the  wrongfulness  of  the  proposed  law.  In 
a  matter  as  to  which  he  is  douhtful  in  his  own  mind,  he  may  well 
defer  to  the  majority  of  the  two  houses.  Individual  members  of  the 
respective  houses,  owing  to  the  nature,  variety,  and  amount  of  busi- 
ness pending,  must  necessarily  rely,  for  their  guidance  in  many,  per- 
haps most  cases,  when  the  matters  involved  are  not  of  popular  inter- 
est, upon  the  investigation  of  appropriate  committees,  or,  it  may  be, 
that  of  a  single  member,  whose  attention  has  been  particularly  directed 
to  the  subject.  For  similar  reasons,  but  even  to  a  greater  extent, 
from  the  number  and  rairiety  of  subjects  daily  urged  upon  his  atten- 
tion, the  President  naturally  relies  much  upon  the  investigation  had, 
and  the  results  arrived  at,  by  the  two  houses  ;  and  hence  those  re- 
sults, in  large  classes  of  cases,  constitute  the  basis  upon  which  his 
approval  rests.  The  President's  responsibility  is  to  the  whole  people 
of  the  United  States  ;  as  that  of  a  senator  is  to  the  people  of  a  partic- 
ular State,  that  of  a  representative  to  the  people  of  a  State  or  district ; 
and  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that  he  will  not  resort  to  the  clearly- 
defined  and  limited  power  of  arresting  legislation,  and  calling  for  re- 
consideration of  any  measure,  except  in  obedience  to  requirements  of 
duty.  When,  however,  he  entertains  a  decisive  and  fixed  conclusion, 
not  merely  of  the  unconstitutionality,  but  of  the  impropriety,  or  in- 
justice in  other  respects,  of  any  measure,  if  he  declare  that  he  approves 
it  he  is  false  to  his  oath,  and  he  deliberately  disregards  his  constitu- 
tional obligations. 

I  cheerfully  recognise  the  weight  of  authority,  which  attaches  to  the 
action  of  a  majority  of  the  two  houses.  But  in  this  case,  as  in  some 
others,  the  framers  of  our  constitution,  for  wise  considerations  of  public 
good,  provided  that  nothing  less  than  a  two-thirds  vote  of  one  or  both 
of  the  houses  of  Congress  shall  become  effective  to  bind  the  co-ordinate 
departments  of  the  government,  the  people  and  the  several  States.  If 
there  be  anything  of  seeming  invidiousness  in  the  official  right  thus 
conferred  on  the  President,  it  is  in  appearance  only,  for  the  same  right 
of  approving  or  disapproving  a  bill,  according  to  each  one's  own 
judgment,  is  conferred  on  every  member  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  House 
of  Representatives. 

It  is  apparent,  therefore,  that  the  circumstances  must  be  extraor- 
dinary, which  would  induce  the  President  to  withhold  approval  from 
a  bill  involving  no  violation  of  the  constitution.  The  amount  of  the 
claims  proposed  to  be  discharged  by  the  bill  before  me,  the  nature  of 


VETO    MESSAGE.  5 

the  transactions  in  which  those  claims  are  alleged  to  have  originated, 
the  length  of  time  during  which  they  have  occupied  the  attention  of 
Congress  and  the  country,  present  such  an  exigency.  Their  history 
renders  it  impossible  that  a  President,  who  has  participated  to  any  con- 
siderable degree  in  public  affairs,  could  have  failed  to  form  respecting 
them  a  decided  opinion,  upon  what  he  would  deem  satisfactory  grounds. 
Nevertheless,  instead  of  resting  on  former  opinions,  it  has  seemed  to 
me  proper  to  review  and  more  carefully  examine  the  whole  subject, 
so  as  satisfactorily  to  determine  the  nature  and  extent  of  my  obliga- 
tions in  the  premises. 

I  feel  called  upon  at  the  threshold  to  notice  an  assertion,  often  re- 
peated, that  the  refusal  of  the  United  States  to  satisfy  these  claims, 
in  the  manner  provided  by  the  present  bill,  rests  as  a  stain  on  the 
justice  of  our  country.  If  it  be  so,,  the  imputation  on  the  public  honor 
is  aggravated  by  the  consideration  that  the  claims  are  coeval  with  the 
present  century,  and  it  has  been  a  persistent  wrong  during  that  whole 
period  of  time.  The  allegation  is,  that  private  property  has  been 
taken  for  public  use  without  just  compensation,  in  violation  of  ex- 
press provision  of  the  constitution;  and  that  reparation  has  been  with- 
held, and  justice  denied,  until  the  injured  parties  have  for  the  most 
part  descended  to  the  grave.  But  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  or  over- 
looked that  those  who  represented  the  people,  in  different  capacities, 
at  the  time  when  the  alleged  obligations  were  incurred,  and  to  whom 
the  charge  of  injustice  attaches  in  the  first  instance,  have  also  passed 
away,  and  borne  with  them  the  special  information  which  controlled 
their  decision,  and,  it  may  be  well  presumed,  constituted  the  justifica- 
tion of  their  acts. 

If,  however,  the  charge  in  question  be  well  founded,  although  its 
admission  would  inscribe  on  our  history  a  page  which  we  might  desire 
most  of  all  to  obliterate,  and  although,  if  true,  it  must  painfully  dis- 
turb our  confidence  in  the  justice  and  the  high  sense  of  moral  and 
political  responsibility  of  those  whose  memories  we  have  been  taught 
to  cherish  with  so  much  reverence  and  respect,  still,  we  have  only 
one  course  of  action  left  to  us  ;  and  that  is,  to  make  the  most  prompt 
and  ample  reparation  in  our  power,  and  consign  the  wrong,  as  far  as 
may  be,  to  forgetfulness. 

But  no  such  heavy  sentence  of  condemnation  should  be  lightly 
passed  upon  the  sagacious  and  patriotic  men,  who  participated  in  the 
transactions  out  of  which  these  claims  are  supposed  to  have  arisen, 
and  who,  from  their  ample  means  of  knowledge  of  the  general  subject 
in  its  minute  details,  and  from  their  official  position,  are  peculiarly 


6  VETO   MESSAGE. 

responsible  for  whatever  there  is  of  wrong  or  injustice  in  the  decisions 
of  the  government. 

Their  justification  consists  in  that  which  constitutes  the  objection 
to  the  present  bill,  namely,  the  absence  of  any  indebtedness  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States.  The  charge  of  denial  of  justice  in  this 
case,  and  consequent  stain  upon  our  national  character,  has  not  yet 
been  endorsed  by  the  American  people.  But,  if  it  were  otherwise, 
this  bill,  so  far  from  relieving  the  past,  would  only  stamp  on  the  pres- 
ent a  more  deep  and  indelible  stigma.  It  admits  the  justice  of  the 
claims,  concedes  that  payment  has  been  wrongfully  withheld  for  fifty 
years,  and  then  proposes,  not  to  pay  them,  but  to  compound  with  the 
public  creditors,  by  providing  that,  whether  the  claims  shall  be  pre- 
sented or  not,  whether  the  sum  appropriated  shall  pay  much  or  little 
of  what  shall  be  found  due,  the  law  itself  shall  constitute  a  perpetual 
bar  to  all  future  demands.  This  is  not,  in  my  judgment,  the  way  to 
atone  for  wrongs,  if  they  exist,  nor  to  meet  subsisting  obligations. 

If  new  facts,  not  known  or  not  accessible  during  the  administration 
of  Mr.  Jefferson,  Mr.  Madison,  or  Mr.  Monroe,  had  since  been  brought 
to  light,  or  new  sources  of  information  discovered,  this  would  greatly 
relieve  the  subject  of  embarrassment.  But  nothing  of  this  nature  has 
occurred. 

That  those  eminent  statesmen  had  the  best  means  of  arriving  at  a 
correct  conclusion,  no  one  will  deny.  That  they  never  recognised  the 
alleged  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  government  is  shown  by  the  his- 
tory of  their  respective  administrations.  Indeed,  it  stands,  not  as  a 
matter  of  controlling  authority,  but  as  a  fact  of  history,  that  these 
claims  have  never,  since  our  existence  as  a  nation,  been  deemed  by 
any  President  worthy  of  recommendation  to  Congress. 

Claims  to  payment  can  rest  only  on  the  plea  of  indebtedness  on  the 
part  of  the  government.  This  requires  that  it  should  be  shown  that 
the  United  States  have  incurred  liability  to  the  claimants,  either  by 
such  acts  as  deprived  them  of  their  property,  or  by  having  actually 
taken  it  for  public  use  without  making  just  compensation  for  it. 

The  first  branch  of  the  proposition,  that  on  which  an  equitable 
claim  to  be  indemnified  by  the  United  States  for  losses  sustained  might 
rest,  requires  at  least  a  cursory  examination  of  the  history  of  the 
transactions  on  which  the  claims  depend.  The  first  link,  which  in  the 
chain  of  events  arrests  attention,  is  the  treaties  of  alliance  and  of 
amity  and  commerce  between  the  United  States  and  France,  negotia- 
ted in  1778.  By  those  treaties  peculiar  privileges  were  secured  to  the 
armed  vessels  of  each  of  the  contracting  parties  in  the  ports  of  the 


VETO   MESSAGE.  7 

other  ;  the  freedom  of  trade  was  greatly  enlarged  ;  and  mutual  obli- 
gations were  incurred  by  each  to  guaranty  to  the  other  their  territo- 
rial possessions  in  America. 

In  1792-'3,  when  war  broke  out  between  France  and  Great  Britain, 
the  former  claimed  privileges  in  American  ports,  which  our  govern- 
ment did  not  admit  as  deducible  from  the  treaties  of  17  7 8,  and  which 
it  was  held  were  in  conflict  with  obligations  to  the  other  belligerent 
powers.  The  liberal  principle  of  one  of  tlje  treaties  referred  to — 
that  free  ships  make  free  goods,  and  that  subsistence  and  supplies 
were  not  contraband  of  war,  unless  destined  to  a  blockaded  port — was 
found,  in  a  commercial  view,  to  operate  disadvantageously  to  France, 
as  compared  with  her  enemy,  Great  Britain,  the  latter  asserting,  un- 
der the  law  of  nations,  the  right  to  capture,  as  contraband,  supplies 
when  bound  for  an  enemy's  port. 

Induced  mainly,  it  is  believed,,  by  these  considerations,  the  govern- 
ment of  France  decreed,  on  the  9th  of  May,  1793,  the  first  year  of 
the  war,  that  "the  French  people  are  no  longer  permitted  to  fulfil 
towards  the  neutral  powers  in  general  the  vows  they  have  so  often 
manifested,  and  which  they  constantly  make  for  the  full  and  entire 
liberty  of  commerce  and  navigation  ;"  and,  as  a  counter  measure  to 
the  course  of  Great  Britain,  authorized  the  seizure  of  neutral  vessels 
bound  to  an  enemy's  port,  in  like  manner  as  that  was  done  by  her 
great  maritime  rival.  This  decree  was  made  to  act  retrospectively, 
and  to  continue  until  the  enemies  of  France  should  desist  from  dep- 
redations on  the  neutral  vessels  bound  to  the  ports  of  France.  Then 
followed  the  embargo,  by  which  our  vessels  were  detained  in  Bor- 
deaux ;  the  seizure  of  British  goods  on  board  of  our  ships,  and  of  the 
property  of  American  citizens,  under  the  pretence  that  it  belonged  to 
English  subjects  ;  and  the  imprisonment  of  American  citizens  cap- 
tured on  the  high  seas. 

Against  these  infractions  of  existing  treaties  and  violations  of  our 
rights  as  a  neutral  power,  we  complained  and  remonstrated.  For  the 
property  of  our  injured  citizens  we  demanded  that  due  compensation 
should  be  made,  and  from  1793  to  1797  used  every  means,  ordinary 
and  extraordinary,  to  obtain  redress  by  negotiation.  In  the  last- 
mentioned  year  these  efforts  were  met  by  a  refusal  to  receive  a  minis- 
ter sent  by  our  government  with  special  instructions  to  represent  the 
amicable  disposition  of  the  government  and  people  of  the  United 
States,  and  their  desire  to  remove  jealousies  and  to  restore  confidence 
by  showing  that  the  complaints  against  them  were  groundless.  Fail- 
ing in  this,  another  attempt  to  adjust  all  differences  between  the  two 


8  VETO   MESSAGE. 

republics  was  made  in  the  form  of  an  extraordinary  mission,,  com- 
posed of  three  distinguished  citizens,  but  the  refusal  to  receive  was 
offensively  repeated  ;  and  thus  terminated  this  last  effort  to  preserve 
peace  and  restore  kind  relations  with  our  early  friend  and  ally,  to 
whom  a  debt  of  gratitude  was  due  which  the  American  people  have 
never  been  willing  to  depreciate  or  to  forget.  Years  of  negotiation  had 
not  only  failed  to  secure  indemnity  for  our  citizens  and  exemption 
from  further  depredation,  but  these  long-continued  efforts  had  brought 
upon  the  government  the  suspension  of  diplomatic  intercourse  with 
France,  and  such  indignities  as  to  induce  President  Adams,  in  his 
message  of  May  16,  1*797",  to  Congress,  convened  in  special  session, 
to  present  it  as  the  particular  matter  for  their  consideration,  and  to 
speak  of  it  in  terms  of  the  highest  indignation.  Thenceforward  the 
action  of  our  government  assumed  a  character,  which  clearly  indicates 
that  hope  was  no  longer  entertained  from  the  amicable  feeling  or  jus- 
tice of  the  government  of  France ;  and  hence  the  subsequent  meas- 
ures were  those  of  force. 

On  the  28th  of  May,  1798,  an  act  was  passed  for  the  employment 
of  the  navy  of  the  United  States  against  ' i  armed  vessels  of  the  repub- 
lic of  France,"  and  authorized  their  capture,  if  " found  hovering  on 
the  coast  of  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  committing  depreda- 
tions on  the  vessels  belonging  to  the  citizens  thereof."  On  the  18th 
of  June,  1798,  an  act  was  passed  prohibiting  commercial  intercourse 
with  France,  under  the  penalty  of  the  forfeiture  of  the  vessels  so  em- 
ployed. On  the  25th  of  June,  the  same  year,  an  act  to  arm  the  mer- 
chant marine  to  oppose  searches,  capture  aggressors,  and  recapture 
American  vessels  taken  by  the  French.  On  the  28th  of  June,  same 
year,  an  act  for  the  condemnation  and  sale  of  French  vessels  captured 
by  authority  of  the  act  of  28th  of  May  preceding.  On  the  27th  of 
July,  same  year,  an  act  abrogating  the  treaties  and  the  convention 
which  had  been  concluded  between  the  United  States  and  France,  and 
declaring  "that  the  same  shall  not  henceforth  be  regarded  as  legally 
obligatory  on  the  government  or  citizens  of  the  United  States."  On 
the  9th  of  the  same  month  an  act  was  passed  which  enlarged  the 
limits  of  the  hostilities  then  existing,  by  authorizing  our  public  ves- 
sels to  capture  armed  vessels  of  France  wherever  found  upon  the  high 
seas,  and  conferred  power  on  the  President  to  issue  commissions  to 
private  armed  vessels  to  engage  in  like  service. 

These  acts,  though  short  of  a  declaration  of  war,  which  would  put 
all  the  citizens  of  each  country  in  hostility  with  those  of  the  other, 
were  nevertheless  actual  war,  partial  in  its  application,  maritime  in 


VETO   MESSAGE.  9 

its  character,  but  which  required  the  expenditure  of  much  of  our  pub- 
lic treasure,  and  much  of  the  blood  of  our  patriotic  citizens,  who,  in 
vessels  but  little  suited  to  the  purposes  of  war,  went  forth  to  battle  on 
the  high  seas  for  the  rights  and  security  of  their  fellow-citizens,  and 
to  repel  indignities  offered  to  the  national  honor. 

It  is  not,  then,  because  of  any  failure  to  use  all  available  means, 
diplomatic  and  military,  to  obtain  reparation,  that  liability  for  private 
claims  can  have  been  incurred  by  the  United  States ;  and  if  there  is 
any  pretence  for  such  liability,  it  must  flow  from  the  action,  not  from 
the  neglect,  of  the  United  States.     The  first  complaint  on  the  part  of 
France  was  against  the  proclamation  of  President  Washington,  of 
April  22,  1793.     At  that  early  period  in  the  war,  which  involved  Aus- 
tria, Prussia,  Sardinia,  the  United  Netherlands,  and  Great  Britain, 
on  the  one  part,  and  France  on  the  other,  the  great  and  wise  man 
who  was  the  Chief  Executive,  as  he  was  and  had  been  the  guardian 
of  our  then  infant  republic,  proclaimed  that  "the  duty  and  interest 
of  the  United  States  require  that  they  should,  with  sincerity  and  good 
faith,  adopt  and  pursue  a  conduct  friendly  and  impartial  towards  the 
belligerent  powers."     This  attitude  of  neutrality,  it  was  pretended, 
was  in  disregard  of  the  obligations  of  alliance  between  the  United 
States  and  France.     And  this,  together  with  the  often-renewed  com- 
plaint that  the  stipulations  of  the  treaties  of  1778  had  not  been  ob- 
served and  executed  by  the  United  States,  formed  the  pretext  for  the 
series  of  outrages  upon  our  government  and  its  citizens,  which  finally 
drove  us  to  seek  redress  and  safety  by  an  appeal  to  force.     The  treat- 
ies  of  1778,  so  long  the  subject  of  French  complaints,  are  now  un- 
derstood to  be  the  foundation  upon  which  are  laid  these  claims  of 
indemnity  from  the  United  States  for  spoliations  committed  by  the 
French  prior  to  1800.     The  act  of  our  government  which  abrogated 
not  only  the  treaties  of  1778,  but  also  the  subsequent  consular  con- 
vention of  1788,  has  already  been  referred  to,  and  it  may  be  well 
here  to  inquire  what  the  course  of  France  was  in  relation  thereto.   By 
the  decrees  of  9th  of  May,  1793,  7th  of  July,  1796,  and  2d  of  March, 
1797,  the  stipulations  which  were  then  and  subsequently  most  import- 
ant to  the  United  States    were  rendered  wholly  inoperative.     The 
highly  injurious  effects  which  these  decrees  are  known  to  have  pro- 
duced, show  how  vital  were  the  provisions  of  treaty  which  they  viola- 
ted, and  make  manifest  the  incontrovertible  right  of  the  United  States 
to  declare,  as  the  consequence  of  these  acts  of  the  other  contracting 
party,  the  treaties  at  a.n  end. 

The  next  step  in  this  inquiry  is,  whether  the  act  declaring  the 


10  VETO    MESSAGE. 

treaties  null  and  void  was  ever  repealed,  or  whether  by  any  other 
means  the  treaties  were  ever  revived  so  as  to  he  either  the  subject  or 
the  source  of  national  obligation  ?  The  war,  which  has  been  described, 
was  terminated  by  the  treaty  of  Paris  of  1800,  and  to  that  instrument 
it  is  necessary  to  turn  to  find  how  much  of  pre-existing  obligations 
between  the  two  governments  outlived  the  hostilities  in  which  they 
had  been  engaged.  By  the  2d  article  of  the  treaty  of  1800,  it  was 
declared  that  the  ministers  plenipotentiary  of  the  two  parties,  not 
being  able  to  agree  respecting  the  treaties  of  alliance,  amity,  and 
commerce  of  1778,  and  the  convention  of  1*788,  nor  upon  the  indem- 
nities mutually  due  or  claimed,  the  parties  will  negotiate  further  on 
these  subjects  at  a  convenient  time,  and  until  they  shall  have  agreed 
upon  these  points  the  said  treaties  and  convention  shall  have  no 
operation. 

When  the  treaty  was  submitted  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
the  second  article  was  disagreed  to,  and  the  treaty  amended  by  strik- 
ing it  out,  and  inserting  a  provision  that  the  convention  then  made 
should  continue  in  force  eight  years  from  the  date  of  ratification, 
which  convention  thus  amended  was  accepted  by  the  First  Consul  of 
France,  with  the  addition  of  a  note  explanatory  of  his  construction  of 
the  convention,  to  the  effect  that  by  the  retrenchment  of  the  second 
article,  the  two  States  renounce  the  respective  pretensions  which  were 
the  object  of  the  said  article. 

It  will  be  perceived  by  the  language  of  the  second  article,  as  origi- 
nally framed  by  the  negotiators,  that  they  had  found  themselves 
unable  to  adjust  the  controversies  on  which  years  of  diplomacy  and 
of  hostilities  had  been  expended ;  and  that  they  were  at  last  compelled 
to  postpone  the  discussion  of  those  questions  to  that  most  indefinite 
period,  a  "convenient  time."  All,  then,  of  these  subjects,  which 
was  revived  by  the  convention,  was  the  right  to  renew,  when  it  should 
be  convenient  to  the  parties,  a  discussion,,  which  had  already  exhausted 
negotiation,  involved  the  two  countries  in  a  maritime  war,  and  on 
which  the  parties  had  approached  no  nearer  to  concurrence  than  they 
were  when  the  controversy  began. 

The  obligations  of  the  treaties  of  1778,  and  the  convention  of  1788, 
were  mutual,  and  estimated  to  be  equal.  But,  however  onerous 
they  may  have  been  to  the  United  States,  they  had  been  abrogated, 
and  were  not  revived  by  the  convention  of  1800,  but  expressly  spoken 
of  as  suspended  until  an  event  which  could  only  occur  by  the  pleasure 
of  the  United  States.  It  seems  clear,  then,  that  the  United  States 
were  relieved  of  no  obligation  to  France  by  the  retrenchment  of  the 


VETO    MESSAGE.  11 

second  article  of  the  convention;  and  if  thereby  France  was  relieved 
of  any  valid  claims  against  her,  the  United  States  received  no  con- 
sideration in  return  ;  and  that  if  private  property  was  taken  by  the 
United  States  from  their  own  citizens,  it  was  not  for  public  use.  But 
it  is  here  proper  to  inquire  whether  the  United  States* did  relieve 
France  from  valid  claims  against  her  on  the  part  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  did  thus  deprive  them  of  their  property. 

The  complaints  and  counter-complaints  of  the  two  governments  had 
been,  that  treaties  were  violated,  and  that  both  public  and  individual 
rights  and  interests  had  been  sacrificed.  The  correspondence  of  our 
ministers  engaged  in  negotiations,  both  before  and  after  the  conven- 
tion of  1800,  sufficiently  proves  how  hopeless  was  the  effort  to  obtain 
full  indemnity  from  France  for  injuries  inflicted  on  our  commerce  from 
1793  to  1800,  unless  it  should  be  by  an  account  in  which  the  rival  pre- 
tensions of  the  two  governments  should  each  be  acknowledged,  and 
thetbalance  struck  between  them. 

It  is  supposable,  and  may  be  inferred  from  the  contemporaneous 
history  as  probable,  that  had  the  United  States  agreed  in  1800  to 
revive  the  treaties  of  1778  and  1788  with  the  construction  which 
France  had  placed  upon  them,  that  the  latter  government  would,  on 
the  other  hand,  have  agreed  to  make  indemnity  for  those  spoliations 
which  were  committed  under  the  pretext  that  the  United  States  were 
faithless  to  the  obligations  of  the  alliance  between  the  two  countries. 

Hence  the  conclusion,  that  the  United  States  did  not  sacrifice  private 
rights  or  property  to  get  rid  of  public  obligations,  but  only  refused  to 
reassume  public  obligations  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  claims  of  American  citizens  on  the  part  of  France. 

All  those  claims,  which  the  French  government  was  willing  to 
admit,  were  carefully  provided  for  elsewhere  in  the  convention,  and 
the  declaration  of  the  First  Consul,  which  was  appended  in  his  addi- 
tional note,  had  no  other  application  than  to  the  claims  which  had 
been  mutually  made  by  the  governments,  but  on  which  they  had 
never  approximated  to  an  adjustment.  In  confirmation  of  the  fact 
that  our  government  did  not  intend  to  cease  from  the  prosecution  of 
the  just  claims  of  our  citizens  against  France,  reference  is  here  made 
to  the  annual  message  of  President  Jefferson  of  December  8,  1801, 
which  opens  with  expressions  of  his  gratification  at  the  restoration  of 
peace  among  sister  nations  ;  and  after  speaking  of  the  assurances  re- 
ceived from  all  nations  with  whom  we  had  principal  relations,  and  of 
the  confidence  thus  inspired ,  that  our  peace  with  them  would  not  have 


12  VETO    MESSAGE. 

been  disturbed  if  they  had  continued  at  war  with  each  other,  he  pro- 
ceeds to  say : 

4 'But  a  cessation  of  irregularities  which  had  afflicted  the  commerce 
of  neutral  nations,  and  of  the  irritations  and  injuries  produced  by 
them,  cannot  but  add  to  this  confidence,  and  strengthen  at  the  same 
time  the  hope  that  wrongs  committed  on  unoffending  friends,  under  a 
pressure  of  circumstances,  will  now  be  reviewed  with  candor,  and  will 
be  considered  as  founding  just  claims  of  retribution  for  the  past  and 
new  assurances  for  the  future." 

The  zeal  and  diligence,  with  which  the  claims  of  our  citizens  against 
France  were  prosecuted,  appear  in  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of 
the  three  years  next  succeeding  the  convention  of  1800,  and  the  effect 
of  these  efforts  is  made  manifest  in  the  convention  of  1803,  in  which 
provision  was  made  for  payment  of  a  class  of  cases,  the  consideration  of 
which  France  had  at  all  previous  periods  refused  to  entertain,  and 
which  are  of  that  very  class  which  it  has  been  often  assumed  were  re- 
leased by  striking  out  the  second  article  of  the  convention  of  1800. 
This  is  shown  by  reference  to  the  preamble,  and  to  the  fourth  and 
fifth  articles  of  the  convention  of  1803,  by  which  were  admitted  among 
the  debts  due  by  France  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  the  amounts 
chargeable  for  i  i  prizes  made  at  sea  in  which  the  appeal  has  been 
properly  lodged  within  the  time  mentioned  in  the  said  convention  of 
the  30th  of  September,  1800;"  and  this  class  was  further  defined  to 
be  only  "  captures  of  which  the  council  of  prizes  shall  have  ordered 
restitution,  it  being  well  understood  that  the  claimant  cannot  have 
recourse  to  the  United  States,  otherwise  than  he  might  have  had  to 
the  French  republic,  and  only  in  case  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  cap- 
tors." 

If,  as  was  affirmed  on  all  hands,  the  convention  of  1803  was  in- 
tended to  close  all  questions  between  the  governments  of  France  and 
the  United  States,  and  twenty  millions  of  francs  were  set  apart  as  a 
sum,  which  might  exceed,,  but  could  not  fall  short  of,  the  debts  due  by 
France  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States, — how  are  we  to  reconcile 
the  claim  now  presented  with  the  estimates  made  by  those,  who  were 
of  the  time  and  immediately  connected  with  the  events,  and  whose 
intelligence  and  integrity  have  in  no  small  degree  contributed  to  the 
character  and  prosperity  of  the  country  in  which  we  live?  Is  it  ra- 
tional to  assume  that  the  claimants,  who  now  present  themselves  for 
indemnity  by  the  United  States,  represent  debts  which  would  have 
been  admitted  and  paid  by  France  but  for  the  intervention  of  the 
United  States?  And  is  it  possible  to  escape  from  the  effect  of  the 


VETO    MESSAGE.  13 

voluminous  evidence  tending  to  establish  the  fact  that  France  resisted 
all  these  claims,  that  it  was  only  after  long  and  skilful  negotiation 
that  the  agents  of  the  United  States  obtained  the  recognition  of  such 
of  the  claims  as  were  provided  for  in  the  conventions  of  1800  and  1803? 
And  is  it  not  conclusive  against  any  pretensions  of  possible  success 
on  the  part  of  the  claimants ,  if  left  unaided  to  make  their  applications 
to  France,  that  the  only  debts  due  to  American  citizens  which  have 
been  paid  by  France  are  those  which  were  assumed  by  the  United 
States  as  part  of  the  consideration  in  the  purchase  of  Louisiana? 

There  is  little  which  is  creditable  either  to  the  judgment  or  patriot- 
ism of  those  of  our  fellow-citizens,  who  at  this  day  arraign  the  justice, 
the  fidelity,  or  love  of  country  of  the  men  who  founded  the  republic, 
in  representing  them  as  having  bartered  away  the  property  of  indi- 
viduals to  escape  from  public  obligations,  and  then  to  have  withheld 
from  them  just  compensation.  It  has  been  gratifying  to  me,  in  tracing 
the  history  of  these  claims,  to  find  that  ample  evidence  exists  to  re- 
fute an  accusation,  which  would  impeach  the  purity,  the  justice,  and 
the  magnanimity  of  the  illustrious  men,  who  guided  and  controlled 
the  early  destinies  of  the  republic. 

I  pass  from  this  review  of  the  history  of  the  subject,  and,  omitting 
many  substantial  objections  to  these  claims,  proceed  to  examine  some- 
what more  closely  the  only  grounds  upon  which  they  can  by  possibil- 
ity be  maintained.  *_>**-** 

Before  entering  on  this,  it  may  be  proper  to  state  distinctly  certain 
propositions  which,  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  are  essential  to  prove 
the  obligations  of  the  government. 

First.  That  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  of  September  30,  1800,  these 
claims  were  valid  and  subsisting  as  against  France. 

Second.  That  they  were  released  or  extinguished  by  the  United 
States  in  that  treaty,  and  by  the  manner  of  its  ratification. 

Third.  That  they  were  so  released  or  extinguished  for  a  considera- 
tion valuable  to  the  government,  but  in  which  the  claimants  had  no 
more  interest  than  any  other  citizens. 

The  convention  between  the  French  republic  and  the  United  States 
of  America,  signed  at  Paris  on  the  30th  day  of  September,  1800,  pur- 
ports in  the  preamble  to  be  founded  on  the  equal  desire  of  the  First 
Consul  (Napoleon  Bonaparte)  and  the  President  of  the  United  States 
to  terminate  the  differences  which  have  arisen  between  the  two  States. 
It  declares,  in  the  first  place,  that  there  shall  be  firm,  inviolable,  and 
universal  peace,  and  a  true  and  sincere  friendship,  between  the  French 
republic  and  the  United  States.  Next  it  proceeds,  in  the  second, 


14  VETO   MESSAGE. 

third,  fourth,  and  fifth  articles,  to  make  provision  in  sundry  respects, 
having  reference  to  past  differences,  and  the  transition  from  the  state 
of  war  between  the  two  countries  to  that  of  general  and  permanent 
peace.  Finally,  in  the  residue  of  the  twenty-seventh  article,  it  stipu- 
lates anew  the  conditions  of  amity  and  intercourse,  commercial  and 
political,  thereafter  to  exist,  and,  of  course,  to  he  substituted  in  place 
of  the  previous  conditions  of  the  treaties  of  alliance  and  of  commerce, 
and  the  consular  convention,  which  are  thus  tacitly,  but  unequivo- 
cally, recognised  as  no  longer  in  force,  but  in  effect  abrogated,  either 
by  the  state  of  war,  or  by  the  political  action  of  the  two  republics. 

Except  in  so  far  as  the  whole  convention  goes  to  establish  the  fact 
that  the  previous  treaties  were  admitted  on  both  sides  to  be  at  an  end, 
none  of  the  articles  are  directly  material  to  the  present  question,  save 
the  following : 

ART.  II.  "  The  ministers  plenipotentiary  of  the  two  parties  not 
being  able  to  agree  at  present  respecting  the  treaty  of  alliance  of  6th 
February,  1778,  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  the  same  date, 
and  the  convention  of  the  14th  November,  1788,  nor  upon  the  indem- 
nities mutually  due  or  claimed,  the  parties  will  negotiate  further  on 
these  subjects  at  a  convenient  time;  and  until  they  may  have  agreed 
upon  these  points,  the  said  treaties  and  convention  shall  have  no 
operation,  and  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  shall  be  regulated  as 
follows  : 

ART.  V.  "  The  debts  contracted  by  one  of  the  two  nations  with  in- 
dividuals of  the  other,  or  by  the  individuals  of  one  with  the  individ- 
uals of  the  other,  shall  be  paid,  or  the  payment  may  be  prosecuted,  in 
the  same  manner  as  if  there  had  been  no  misunderstanding  between 
the  two  States.  But  this  clause  shall  not  extend  to  indemnities 
claimed  on  account  of  captures  or  confiscations." 

On  this  convention  being  submitted  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  they  consented  and  advised  to  its  ratification  with  the  follow- 
ing proviso : 

"  Provided  that  the  second  article  be  expunged,  and  that  the  fol- 
lowing article  be  added  or  inserted  :  It  is  agreed  that  the  present  con- 
vention shall  be  in  force  for  the  term  of  eight  years  from  the  time  of 
the  exchange  of  ratifications." 

The  spirit  and  purpose  of  this  change  are  apparent  and  unmistaka- 
ble. The  convention,  as  signed  by  the  respective  plenipotentiaries, 
did  not  adjust  all  the  points  of  controversy.  Both  nations,  however, 
desired  the  restoration  of  peace.  Accordingly,  as  to  those  matters 
in  the  relations  of  the  two  countries,  concerning  which  they  could 


VETO   MESSAGE.  15 

agree,  they  did  agree  for  trie  time  being ;  and  as  to  the  rest,  concern- 
ing which  they  could  not  agree,  they  suspended  and  postponed  further 
negotiation. 

They  abandoned  no  pretensions,  they  relinquished  no  right  on  either 
side,  hut  simply  adjourned  the  question  until  "a  convenient  time/' 
Meanwhile,  and  until  the  arrival  of  such  convenient  time,  the  rela- 
tions of  the  two  countries  were  to  he  regulated  by  the  stipulations  of 
the  convention. 

Of  course,  the  convention  was  on  its  face  a  temporary  and  pro- 
visional one,  but  in  the  worst  possible  form  of  prospective  termination. 
It  was  to  cease  at  a  convenient  time.  But  how  should  that  conveni- 
ent time  be  ascertained?  It  is  plain  that  such  a  stipulation,  while 
professedly  not  disposing  of  the  present  controversy,  had  within  itself 
the  germ  of  a  fresh  one;  for  the  two  governments  might  at  any 
moment  fall  into  dispute  on  the  question  whether  that  convenient 
time  had  or  had  not  arrived.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  antici- 
pated and  prevented  this  question  by  the  only  possible  expedient,  that 
is,  the  designation  of  a  precise  date.  This  being  done,  the  remaining 
pfrts  of  the  second  article  became  superfluous  and  useless;  for,  as  all 
the  provisions  of  the  convention  would  expire  in  eight  years,  it  would 
necessarily  follow  that  negotiations  must  be  renewed  within  that 
period;  more  especially  as  the  operation  of  the  amendment,  which 
covered  the  whole  convention  was,  that  even  the  stipulation  of  peace 
in  the  first  article  became  temporary  and  expired  in  eight  years, 
whereas  that  article,  and  that  article  alone,  was  permanent  according 
to  the  original  tenor  of  the  convention. 

The  convention  thus  amended  being  submitted  to  the  First  Consul, 
was  ratified  by  him,  his  act  of  acceptance  being  accompanied  with  the 
following  declaratory  note : 

u  The  government  of  the  United  States  having  added  in  its  ratifi- 
cation that  the  convention  should  be  in  force  for  the  space  of  eight 
years,  and  having  omitted  the  second  article,  the  government  of  the 
French  republic  consents  to  accept,  ratify,  and  confirm  the  above  con- 
vention, with  the  addition  importing  that  the  convention  shall  be  in 
force  for  the  space  of  eight  years,  and  with  the  retrenchment  of  the 
second  article :  provided  that  by  this  retrenchment  the  two  States 
renounce  the  respective  pretensions  which  are  the  object  of  the  said 
article." 

The  convention,  as  thus  ratified  by  the  First  Consul,  having  been 
again  submitted  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  that  body  resolved 
that  "  they  considered  the  convention  as  fully  ratified,"  and  returned 


16  VETO    MESSAGE. 

the  same  to  the  President  for  promulgation,  and  it  was  accordingly 
promulgated  in 'the  usual  form  by  President  Jefferson. 

Now,  it  is  clear,  that  in  simply  resolving  that  "they  considered  the 
convention  as  fully  ratified/'  the  Senate  did  in  fact  abstain  from  any 
express  declaration  of  dissent  or  assent  to  the  construction  put  by  the 
First  Consul  on  the  retrenchment  of  the  second  article.  -If  any  infer- 
ence, beyond  this,  can  be  drawn  from  their  resolution,  it  is,  that  they 
regarded  the  proviso  annexed  by  the  First  Consul  to  his  declaration 
of  acceptance  as  foreign  to  the  subject,  as  nugatory,  or  as  without  con- 
sequence or  effect.  Notwithstanding  this  proviso,  they  considered  the 
ratification  as  full.  If  the  new  proviso  made  any  change  in  the  pre- 
vious import  of  the  convention,  then  it  was  not  full.  And  .in  con- 
sidering it  a  full  ratification,  they  in  substance  deny  that  the  proviso 
did  in  any  respect  change  the  tenor  of  the  convention. 

By  the  second  article,  as  it  originally  stood,  neither  republic  had 
relinquished  its  existing  rights  or  pretensions,  either  as  to  other  pre- 
vious treaties,  or  the  indemnities  mutually  due  or  claimed,  but  only 
deferred  the  consideration  of  them  to  a  convenient  time.  By  the 
amendment  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  that  convenient  time, 
instead  of  being  left  indefinite,  was  fixed  at  eight  years ;  but  no  right 
or  pretension  of  either  party  was  surrendered  or  abandoned. 

If  the  Senate  erred  in  assuming  that  the  proviso  added  by  the  First 
Consul  did  not  affect  the  question,  then  the  transaction  would  amount 
to  nothing  more  than  to  have  raised  a  new  question  to  be  disposed  of 
on  resuming  the  negotiations,  namely,  the  question  whether  the 
proviso  of  the  First  Consul  did  or  not  modify  or  impair  the  effect  of 
the  convention  as  it  had  been  ratified  by  the  Senate. 

That  such,  and  such  only,  was  the  true  meaning  and  effect  of  the 
transaction;  that  it  was  not,  and  was  not  intended  to  be,  a  relinquish- 
ment  by  the  United  States  of  any  existing  claim  on  France,  and 
especially  that  it  was  not  an  abandonment  of  any  claims  of  individual 
citizens,  nor  the  set-off  of  these  against  any  conceded  national  obli- 
gations to  France,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  President  Jefferson  did  at 
once  resume  and  prosecute  to  successful  conclusion  negotiations  to 
obtain  from  France  indemnification  for  the  claims  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  existing  at  the  date  of  that  convention ;  for,  on  the  30th 
of  April,  1803,  three  treaties  were  concluded  at  Paris  between  the 
United  States  of  America  and  the  French  republic,  one  of  which  em- 
braced the  cession  of  Louisiana ;  another  stipulated  for  the  payment 
of  sixty  millions  of  francs  by  the  United  States  to  France ;  and  a 
third  provided,  that  for  the  satisfaction  of  sums  due  by  France  to  citi- 


VETO  MESSAGE.  17 

zens  of  the  United  States  at  the  conclusion  of  the  convention  of  Sep- 
tember 30,  1800,  and  in  express  compliance  with  the  second  and  fifth 
articles  thereof,  a  further  sum  of  twenty  millions  of  francs  should  be 
appropriated  and  paid  by  the  United  States.  In  the  preamble  to  the 
first  of  these  treaties,  which  ceded  Louisiana,  it  is  set  forth  that — 

i '  The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  First  Con- 
sul of  the  French  republic,  in  the  name  of  the  French  people,  desiring 
to  remove  all  source  of  misunderstanding  relative  to  objects  of  discus- 
sion mentioned  in  the  second  and  fifth  articles  of  the  convention  of 
the  8th  Vendemaire,  an.  9,  (30th  September,  1800,)  relative  to  ihe 
rights  claimed  by  the  United  States  in  virtue  of  the  treaty  concluded 
at  Madrid  the  27th  of  October,  1795,  between  his  Catholic  Majesty 
and  the  said  United  States,  and  willing  to  strengthen  the  union  and 
friendship  which  at  the  time  of  the  said  convention  was  happily  re- 
established betweeji  the  two  nations,  have  respectively  named  their 
plenipotentiaries,"  who  "have  agreed  to  the  following  articles." 

Here  is  the  most  distinct  and  categorical  declaration  of  the  two  gov- 
ernments, that  the  matters  of  claim  in  the  second  article  of  the  con- 
vention of  1800  had  not  been  ceded  away,  relinquished,  or  set  off,  but 
they  were  still  subsisting  subjects  of  demand  against  France.  The 
same  declaration  appears  in  equally  emphatic  language  in  the  third 
of  these  treaties,  bearing  the  same  date,  the  preamble  of  which  re- 
cites that — 

"The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  First  Con- 
sul of  the  French  republic,  in  the  name  of  the  French  people,  having 
by  a  treaty  of  this  date  terminated  all  difficulties  relative  to  Louisiana, 
and  established  on  a  solid  foundation  the  friendship  which  unites  the 
two  nations,  and  being  desirous,  in  compliance  with  the  second  and 
fifth  articles  of  the  convention  of  the "8th  Vendemaire,  ninth  year  of 
the  French  republic,  (30th  September,  1800,)  to  secure  the  payment 
of  the  sums  due  by  France  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,"  and 
"have  appointed  plenipotentiaries,"  who  agreed  to  the  following 
among  other  articles  : 

"ART.  I.  The  debts  due  by  France  to  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
contracted  before  the  8th  of  Vendemaire,  ninth  year  of  the  French  re- 
public, (30th  September,  1800,)  shall  be  paid  according  to  the  follow- 
ing regulations,  with  interest  at  six  per  cent.,  to  commence  from  the 
periods  when  the  accounts  and  vouchers  were  presented  to  the  French 
government. 

"ART.  II.  The  debts  provided  for  by  the  preceding  article  are  those 
whose  result  is  comprised  in  the  conjectural  note  annexed  to  the 


18  VETO   MESSAGE. 

present  convention,  and  which,  with  the  interest,  cannot  exceed  the 
sum  of  twenty  millions  of  francs.  The  claims  comprised  in  the  said 
note  which  fall  within  the  exceptions  of  the  following  articles  shall 
not  he  admitted  to  the  benefit  of  this  provision. 

"  ART.  IV.  It  is  expressly  agreed  that  the  preceding  articles  shall 
comprehend  no  debts  but  such  as  are  due  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  who  have  been  and  are  yet  creditors  of  France,  for  supplies,  for 
embargoes,  and  prizes  made  at  sea,  in  which  the  appeal  has  been 
properly  lodged  within  the  time  mentioned  in  the  said  convention,  8th 
Vendemaire,  ninth  year,  (30th  September,  1800.) 

"  ART.  Y.  The  preceding  articles  shall  apply  only — 1st,  to  captures 
of  which  the  council  of  prizes  shall  have  ordered  restitution,  it  being 
well  understood  that  the  claimant  cannot  have  recourse  to  the  United 
States,  otherwise  than  he  might  have  had  to  the  government  of  the 
French  republic,  and  only  in  case  of  insufficiency  of  the  captors ;  2d, 
the  debts  mentioned  in  the  said  fifth  article  of  the  convention,  con- 
tracted before  the  8th  Vendemaire,  an.  9,  (30th  September,  1800,)  the 
payment  of  which  has  been  heretofore  claimed  of  the  actual  govern- 
ment of  France,  and  for  which  the  creditors  have  a  right  to  the  pro- 
tection of  the  United  States :  the  said  fifth  article  does  not  comprehend 
prizes  whose  condemnation  has  been  or  shall  be  confirmed.  It  is  th£ 
express  intention  of  the  contracting  parties  not  to  extend  the  benefit 
of  the  present  convention  to  reclamations  of  American  citizens,  who 
shall  have  established  houses  of  commerce  in  France,  England,  or 
other  countries  than  the  United  States,  in  partnership  with  foreign- 
ers, and  who  by  that  reason,  and  the  nature  of  their  commerce,  ought 
to  be  regarded  as  domiciliated  in  the  places  where  such  houses  exist. 
All  agreements  and  bargains  concerning  merchandise,  which  shall 
not  be  the  property  of  American'citizens,  are  equally  excepted  from  the 
benefit  of  the  said  convention,  saving,  however,  to  such  persons  their 
claims  in  like  manner  as  if  this  treaty  had  not  been  made. 

"  ART.  XII.  In  case  of  claims  for  debts  contracted  by  the  govern- 
ment of  France  with  citizens  of  the  United  States  since  the  8th  Vende- 
maire, ninth  year,  (30th  September,  1800,)  not  being  comprised  in  this 
convention,  may  be  pursued,  and  the  payment  demanded  in  the  same 
manner  as  .if  it  had  not  been  made." 

Other  articles  of  the  treaty  provide  for  the  appointment  of  agents 
to  liquidate  the  claims  intended  to  be  secured,  and  for  the  payment  of 
them,  as  allowed,,  at  the  treasury  of  the  United  States.  The  following 
is  the  concluding  clause  of  the  tenth  article  : 

"The  rejection  of  any  claim  shall  have  no  other  effect  than  to  ex- 


VETO   MESSAGE.  19 

empt  the  United  States  from  the  payment  of  it,  the  French  govern- 
ment&eserving  to  itself  the  right  to  decide  definitely  on  such  claim 
so  far  as  it  concerns  itself. ' ' 

Now,  from  the  provisions  of  the  treaties  thus  collated,  tfre  following 
deductions  undeniably  follow,  namely : 

First.  Neither  the  second  article  of  the  convention  of  1800,  as  it 
originally  stood,  nor  the  retrenchment  of  that  article,  nor  the  proviso 
in  the  ratification  by  the  First  Consul,  nor  the  action  of  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  thereon,  was  regarded  by  either  France  or  the 
United  States  as  the  renouncement  of  any  claims  of  American  citizens 
against  France. 

Second.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  treaties  of  1803  the  two  govern- 
ments took  up  the  question  precisely  where  it  was  left  on  the  day  of 
the  signature  of  that  of  1800,  without  suggestion,  on  the  part  of 
France,  that  the  claims  of  our  citizens  were  excluded  by  the  retrench- 
ment of  the  second  article  or  the  note  of  the  First  Consul,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  make  ample  provision  for  such  as  France  could  be  induced 
to  admit  were  justly  due,  and  they  were  accordingly  discharged  in 
full,  with  interest,  by  the  United  States  in  the  stead  and  behalf  of 
France. 

Third.  The  United  States,  not  having  admitted  in  the  convention 
of  1800  that  they  were  under  any  obligations  to  France  by  reason  of 
the  abrogation  of  the  treaties  of  IVTS  and  1788,  persevered  in  this 
view  of  the  c^lestion  by  the  tenor  of  the  treaties  of  1803,  and  therefore 
had  no  such  national  obligation  to  discharge,  and  did  not,  either  in 
purpose  or  in  fact,  at  any  time  undertake  to  discharge  themselves 
from  any  such  obligation  at  the  expense  and  with  the  property  of  in- 
dividual citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Fourth.  By  the  treaties  of  1803,  the  United  States  obtained  from 
France  the  acknowledgment  and  payment,  as  part  of  the  indemnity 
for  the  cession  of  Louisiana,  of  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States 
for  spoliations  so  far  as  France  would  admit  her  liability  in  the 
premises;  but  even  then  the  United  States  did  not  relinquish  any 
claim  of  American  citizens  not  provided  for  by  those  treaties :  so  far 
from  it,  to  the  honor  of  France  be  it  remembered,  she  expressly  re- 
served to  herself  the  right  to  reconsider  any  rejected  claims  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States. 

Fifth.  As  to  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  against  France, 
which  had  been  the  subject  of  controversy  between  the  two  countries 
prior  to  the  signature  of  the  convention  of  1800,  and  the  fucther  con- 
sideration of  which  was  reserved  for  a  more  convenient  time  by  the 


20  VETO   MESSAGE. 

second  article  of  that  convention :  for  these  claims,  and  these  only, 
provision  was  made  in  the  treaties  of  1803,  all  other  claims  being  ex- 
pressly excluded  "by  them  from  their  scope  and  purview. 

It  is  not  to  be  overlooked,  though  not  necessary  to  the  conclusion, 
that  by  the  convention  between  France  and  the  United  States  of  the 
4th  of  July,  1831,  complete  provision  was  made  for  the  liquidation, 
discharge,  and  payment,  on  both  sides,  of  all  claims  of  citizens  of 
either  against  the  other  for  unlawful  seizures,  captures,  sequestra- 
tions, or  destructions  of  the  vessels,  cargoes,  or  other  property,  with- 
out any  limitation  of  time,  so  as  in  terms  to  run  back  to  the  date  of 
the  last  preceding  settlement,  at  least  to  that  of  1803,  if  not  to  the 
commencement  of  our  national  relations  with  France. 

This  review  of  the  successive  treaties  between  France  and  the  Uni- 
ted States  has  brought  my  mind  to  the  undoubting  conviction  that 
while  the  United  States  have,  in  the  most  ample  and  the  completest 
manner,  discharged  their  duty  towards  such  of  their  citizens  as  may 
have  been  at  any  time  aggrieved  by  acts  of  the  French  government,  so, 
also,  France  has  honorably  discharged  herself  of  all  obligations  in 
the  premises  towards  the  United  States.  To  concede  what  this  bill 
assumes,  would  be  to  impute  undeserved  reproach  both  to  France  and 
to  the  United  States. 

I  am,  of  course,  aware  that  the  bill  proposes  only  to  provide  indem- 
nification for  such  valid  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  against 
France  as  shall  not  have  been  stipulated  for  and  embraced  in  any  of 
the  treaties  enumerated.  But,  in  excluding  all  such  claims,  it  excludes 
all  in  fact  for  which,  during  the  negotiations,  France  could  be  per- 
suaded to  agree  that  she  was  in  any  wise  liable  to  the  Unifed  States 
or  our  citizens.  What  remains?  And  for  what  is  five  millions  ap- 
propriated ?  In  view  of  what  has  been  said ,  there  would  seem  to  be 
no  ground  on  which  to  raise  a  liability  of  the  United  States,  unless  it 
be  the  assumption  that  the  United  States  are  to  be  considered  the  in- 
surer and  the  guarantor  of  all  claims,  of  whatever  nature,  which  any 
individual  citizen  may  have  against  a  foreign  nation. 

FRANKLIN  PIERCE. 

WASHINGTON,  February  It,  1855. 


\^p 


7 


